Delhi High Court
Aniruddha Malpani vs Whitehat Education Technology ... on 21 October, 2021
$~S-27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 134/2021 & CM APPLs. 36520-521/2021
ANIRUDDHA MALPANI ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocate with
Mr. Yadunath Bhargavan, Ms. Rao
Vishwaja, Ms. Divya Prasad and
Mr. Tushar Gupta, Advocates.
versus
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Ms. Eva
Bishwas and Mr. Raghav Kacker,
Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 21st October, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral) \
1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant challenging
the order dated 27th November, 2020 passed by learned Single Judge, in I.A
No. 1092/2020 in Commercial Suit No.518/2020, whereby the learned Single
Judge was pleased to pass an ad interim injunction order in the application
filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 134/2021
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.10.2021
19:23:37
2. It is pertinent to mention that by way of the impugned order, the
appellant has been restrained from posting, publishing, sharing any content
which is defamatory, derogatory or deprecatory in nature to the Respondent,
its management or employees. The appellant was also directed to take down
twelve tweets within forty eight hours of passing of the impugned order.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single Judge
ought to have considered that the "blanket" order given against the Appellant
is violative of her fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression
which is one of the cornerstones of our Constitution as laid down by the
Supreme Court in Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt Ltd v Union of
India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.
4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel for respondent vehemently
disputes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. He
further states that the injunction order is not being complied with by the
defendant/appellant.
5. A perusal of the paperbook reveals that what is impugned in the present
appeal is an ad interim injunction order. The application for ad interim
injunction is pending and yet to be disposed of. Further, though the
respondent/plaintiff has filed applications being I.A. 5277/2021 (under Order
XXXIX Rule 4) and I.A. 5278/2021 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC), yet the
same have never been pressed before the learned Single Judge and no notice
has been issued till date. This Court also finds that the matter is now listed
before the learned Single Judge on 12th November, 2021.
6. Consequently, this Court disposes of the present appeal with a direction
to the learned Single Judge to decide I.A. No. 1092/2020, I.A. 5277/2021 and
I.A. 5278/2021 as expeditiously as possible preferably within twelve weeks
FAO(OS) (COMM) 134/2021
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.10.2021
19:23:37
from the next date of hearing. At the same time, this Court clarifies that an
interim order of injunction cannot be flouted on the ground that the Court that
passed the injunction order did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try
the suit. [See: Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Another Vs. Hind Rubber
Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 443].
7. With the aforesaid direction, the present appeal along with pending
applications stands disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
OCTOBER 21, 2021
TS
FAO(OS) (COMM) 134/2021
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.10.2021
19:23:37
